Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, President Donald Trump said his red line for resuming military action in Iran would be if he didn’t believe the parties could reach a deal in a timely manner, and said U.S. forces could be deployed into Iran to retrieve and destroy the regime’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

Trump continued to assert that Iran is desperate for a deal, even as negotiations appear largely deadlocked and as Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told CNN in Tehran on Sunday that the primary obstacle to an agreement is Washington’s changing and “contradictory” positions. Meanwhile, U.S. and Iranian forces continue to exchange strikes nearly daily around the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump ruled out the prospect of unfreezing any Iranian assets or offering upfront sanctions relief to secure a breakthrough, maintaining that compliance must precede concessions.

“If they behave, if they do a good job, we start talking,” Trump said. But should Iran walk away from the table or drag out the timeline, the president emphasized he would not rule out a return to hostilities.

“My red line would be if I think I wasn’t going to make a deal, or if I wasn’t going to make a deal fast enough,” Trump said of resuming military action, noting that if Iran were to kill additional Americans — more than a dozen U.S. troops have already been killed in the current conflict — that would be “something that I would think about very seriously.”

“We’re having very good negotiations with the people that are leading the country now. It’s the third group that we’ve been dealing with. And they are different. And you could say it’s regime change actually because these are very different people. I find them to be more rational, very smart,” he added. 

Trump specifically noted that he considers Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei — the son of the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — a more “rational” negotiating partner. 

“I think [he is] more rational. He’s pretty badly injured. So there’s a certain bravery there,” Trump said. “A lot of people, if they were injured that badly, they wouldn’t be talking about, you know, ‘How are we doing with the United States?’ They’d have other things on their mind. So there’s a certain bravery there. But he is very seriously injured.”

The president further said U.S. forces could be sent into Iranian territory to secure the regime’s nuclear stockpiles, claiming that Washington knows exactly where the material is stored. 

“The way you do it is if we make a deal now, we’re friendly, we’ll all go together. It’ll be our equipment. We’ll take it out and destroy it, whether it’s onsite or whether we take it offsite,” Trump explained. “We will be at peace. And we will go with them, or without them. But we won’t have people shooting at us, okay?”

He added: “Now, if we don’t make a deal, then we’re going to take them out militarily very harshly. And we’ll wait until we do that before we go, in which case we’ll have safety either way.”

Trump further claimed that the U.S. possesses highly specific data on Iran’s remaining military capabilities, including the locations of its drones, manufacturing plants, remaining missiles and launch sites. While the president stated that the majority of Iran’s production facilities “have been knocked out,” he acknowledged that Tehran still maintains some of its arsenal.

“I know almost the number, and we know where they are too, and we know where their drones are, and we know where their drone factories are,” Trump said. “Most of the drone factories have been knocked out, most of the launching pads have been knocked out and most of the missile manufacturing areas have been knocked out. But they still have capacity. They have some missiles, they have some drones. I would say percentage wise, maybe 21-22% of their missiles. It’s a lot of missiles, but it’s not what it was when we first attacked.”

Turning to the broader regional landscape, Trump clarified that he is “not demanding” that Lebanon be included in a peace deal with Iran, as Tehran has requested, though he expressed a desire to see “a more surgical” approach to combating Hezbollah

“I’d like to see Lebanon have a better life,” Trump said. “I’d like to see a more surgical attack on Hezbollah. I think it should be more surgical,” he added, but did not reference Israel or its recent military actions against the terror group.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said on Tuesday that he is growing increasingly concerned that President Donald Trump may agree to a deal with Iran that does not ensure the retrieval of Tehran’s stockpile of enriched uranium or that the regime will never acquire a nuclear weapon.

Fetterman, who has become the most hawkish Democrat in Congress on Iran and the sole member of his party to vote against every Iran war powers resolution in recent months, spoke with Jewish Insider in Washington about the possible outcomes of the ongoing peace talks. The Pennsylvania senator acknowledged that he and Trump had taken political heat from their respective parties over their stances on the conflict, but argued that solving the Iranian nuclear issue would be legacy-defining for the president. 

“Nuclear dust, that’s the reason why we’re here. This is why I was reasoned and OK with setting myself politically on fire to be the only Democrat for the last 90 days voting against these war powers acts,” Fetterman told JI. “Presidents always talk about their legacy. At this point, if you cave just for political convenience, what kind of legacy is that?”

“I appreciate every now and then when Trump will say, ‘Well, it [the war in Iran] is only going to be about that nuclear dust,’ but Israel is never allowed to fully pulverize their enemies,” he continued. “They’re fighting a nation where they like martyrdom and that’s what they celebrate. It’s so dumb.”

The Pennsylvania senator addressed the negative U.S. public perception of the war, arguing that the president was acting in a “Churchillian” manner by taking on the Iranian regime, and expressing concern that reversing course in Iran could indicate the Trump administration’s lack of commitment to Taiwan, in the event of a Chinese invasion. 

“I hope after that silly visit to China that they [the Trump administration] aren’t now like, ‘Well, we’re going to turn our back to Taiwan,’” he added, referencing the president’s summit in Beijing last month with Chinese President Xi Jinping. “These are all fights for civilization and democracy. I don’t care if it’s in Gaza or Iran, Taiwan against Chinese communism or Russia and Ukraine, it’s the same fight, and that’s why it’s our special responsibility, it’s America’s, to stand with these allies.”

Fetterman pointed to the pressure Democrats faced during the 2024 election to take a firmer stance in opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza due to the high death toll of Palestinians. He argued that those of his Democratic colleagues who had worked to restrain Israel since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on the Jewish state had damaged their credibility. 

“How can you trust these people?” he asked of those Democrats. “Two years ago they were all demanding and pushing for a ceasefire. Can you believe where we would be now if we had a ceasefire? Can you imagine if Israel had to grovel to get their people back? Can you imagine if Iran could be a nuclear power by now?”

“If [there was] a ceasefire in July [2024] based on the pressures from the election in ‘24, [former Hamas chief Yahya] Sinwar would be alive. Hezbollah would be intact. They could launch thousands of rockets at will — and think of  the capabilities that Iran could be at now,” he added. “Where’s the outrage? They pretended to be so worried about it. It was politically convenient to try to push Israel into a position that would put Iran on the path to nuclear power, and [leave] their proxies fully intact.”

A series of recent events and revelations has raised concerns that Iran could be working to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program damaged during the 12-day war with Israel and the U.S., and that Russia could be playing a role in aiding the effort.

Iran withdrew last week from an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to allow the watchdog to inspect its nuclear sites, just after the U.N. agency’s board of governors passed a resolution calling on Iran to provide more complete information about its nuclear sites and remaining stock of enriched uranium. The resolution came as the IAEA’s chief, Rafael Grossi, said that there were indications of activity at some Iranian nuclear sites. 

Also last week, the Financial Times reported that Iranian scientists and nuclear experts visited Russian military research institutes a second time last year. The trip was organized by a front group for Iran’s Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, which is behind the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons research. The extent of cooperation between the countries, however, is still unknown. 

Those developments come on the heels of a $25 billion deal between Russia and Iran, finalized in September, for the former to build nuclear power plants for the latter.

Jonathan Ruhe, fellow for American strategy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Jewish Insider that the FT’s reporting fits with Western intelligence findings from before the Israeli and American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites that the Islamic Republic was trying to reduce the time it would take to turn its enriched uranium into a bomb.

“These activities focused on simulating a nuclear explosion, without actually detonating a test device. Israel’s growing urgency about Iran’s progress contributed to its decision to launch the 12-day war when it did,” he said.

Arkady Mil-Man, head of the Russia program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, told JI that there is “no doubt Iran is trying to rehabilitate its capabilities – nuclear and missile – and Russia is its strategic partner.” 

Earlier this month, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with Russia President Vladimir Putin, a Kremlin readout of the phone call said they discussed “the state of affairs surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.” 

Cooperation between Iran and Russia should be of great concern to Israel, Mil-Man said, and expressed hope that Netanyahu said as much to Putin. “It’s an existential threat. Russia is cooperating with Israel’s No. 1 enemy,” Mil-Man said.

Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the nonproliferation and biodefense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that “Russia has traditionally limited its assistance on Iran’s nuclear weapons program to applications that have plausible civilian uses, but which can also assist a nuclear weapons program.”

However, she added that “with Tehran’s help during the Ukraine war, it is possible that the Russians are willing to aid in ways that directly help on weaponizing or constructing nuclear devices.”

JINSA’s Ruhe said the Russian visits “suggest an openness to aiding Iran’s weaponization,” and also suggested that Putin’s position may have shifted due to Iran’s support for Russia in the Ukraine war. In addition, he said that in Putin’s view, “the more he could help Iran pull America’s focus away from Europe, perhaps all the better.” 

The Financial Times report did not include specific enough information to know whether the meeting would help Iran with nuclear testing, but Stricker said that media exposure “will help deter Moscow from contemplating more aggressive help for the Tehran regime’s efforts to rebuild or reconstitute the program.”

Sophie Kobzantsev, a research fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, told JI that the partnership between Iran and Russia has its limits. (Lahav Harkov is a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute.)

“Russia always played a double game with Iran,” she said. “They gave them technology, weapons, air defense systems. In the nuclear area, they helped, but Russia was always part of the international organizations that inspected Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Russia wants Iran to be in a situation that it can control. … Putin understands nuclear deterrence, but he does not want things to get out of control. He doesn’t want the regime or the economy to collapse. He needs Iran to be stable enough to be managed,” she added.

Russia’s general approach to Iran’s nuclear program, Ruhe said, “has been to enrich Moscow and give it leverage, without moving Iran closer to a bomb.” 

As such, Russia played a role in building Iran’s reactor in Bushehr, worked on nuclear energy and research with Iran and now seeks to build nuclear power plants.

Iran is increasingly isolated due to the snapback of U.N. sanctions earlier this year, and Putin has indicated that he will try to leverage that isolation, with Russia calling the sanctions invalid, Ruhe said.

Iran doesn’t have many choices other than Russia to help it on the nuclear front, but Russia is motivated by seeking a greater foothold in the Middle East, Kobzantsev explained.

“Russia lost on two major fronts. They were mostly kicked out of Syria, and Iran and Hezbollah [were weakened],” she explained. “The American foothold in the Middle East can be seen everywhere; the Gaza plan, strengthening Iran’s rivals in the Gulf. Russia is mostly absent from the region.” 

Washington also recently took steps to strengthen its ties in Central Asia, what was once a major Russian sphere of influence, including negotiating peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and recent trade agreements with Kazakhstan.

“Iran sits on both of those points, and a significant foothold there would be important for Russia to rebuild its influence in the Middle East and create a counter to the U.S.,” Kobzantsev said. 

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) cautioned on Tuesday that bombing Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear facility would leave significant enriched uranium buried underground.

“I’m a little confused on all the conversation about dropping a bunker buster on a mountain that’s filled with enriched uranium, and how that solves the problem. If you’re going to try to get enriched uranium out of the country, dropping a big bunker buster on it may disable the centrifuges in [Fordow], but you still have 900 pounds of enriched uranium sitting there,” Lankford told Jewish Insider. “And so to me, the most strategic thing we can do is find a way to get that enriched uranium out of there and also take out their capacity to do any more enrichment.”

He added that such an operation could be “[with Iran’s] consent [through a deal] or kinetic [military operations], one or the other.” Most experts believe that Israel lacks the ability to destroy the Fordow facility without U.S. assistance.

“They can’t have that level of enriched uranium sitting there in those centrifuges, all spinning, but just burying that uranium inside the mountain, I think, doesn’t solve the problem either,” Lankford continued.

Andrea Stricker, the deputy director of the nonproliferation and biodefense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that the risk from nuclear materials remaining at Fordow after an Israeli or American strike would be minimal.

“If the Israelis target Fordow they would likely render it, for all practical purposes, inaccessible. The highly enriched uranium stocks could survive but would be very difficult for the Iranians to reach,” Stricker told JI. “The United States using the 30,000-pound massive ordnance penetrators would effectively destroy the material or entomb it inside. “

She added that there is “little concern about a major radiological incident in either case. Any radiation and chemical hazard would be minimal and localized to the facility, requiring people to wear protective gear.”

She compared the possibility to the Israeli strikes on above-ground facilities at Natanz, where the International Atomic Energy Agency reported no significant concerns about radiological contamination outside the site.

Asked about whether the U.S. should be pushing for regime change in Iran, Lankford said that “the best thing that could happen is regime change there,” but did not endorse the idea of using U.S. forces to achieve that goal. President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday that the U.S. could kill Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei.

“This is a regime that chants, over and over, ‘Death to America. Death to Jews.’ And they’ve actively worked towards assassinating President Trump, assassinating former members of our cabinet, working for the undermining of the United States government, attacking our warships through the Houthis off the coast of Yemen,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “We need to see regime change there because I’m not sure things get better for the Iranian people, or for the region, until there’s new leadership with a very different vision.”

He said that while the nuclear threat is the most pressing issue, it’s hard to see how the situation will improve, how the Iranian government can ever be trusted or how the Iranian people could have better lives under the Islamic Republic regime.

Lankford said that, under war powers limitations, the U.S. military may not be able to get involved until it is attacked directly or until the administration can provide evidence that Iran is planning a direct attack on the United States or U.S. personnel, as it did for the 2020 killing of Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The Oklahoma senator said in a CNN interview that the U.S. should not “rush into a war” but added that “when we are attacked, when we are threatened, we can’t just sit back and pretend that’s not going to happen.”

“If 9/11 taught us anything, when people chant ‘Death to America’ thousands of miles away, that does have consequences, they can carry that out,” Lankford continued

He noted on CNN that there are also 700,000 Americans in Israel, and that what happens in the region will impact them. Lankford also said Iran is “dancing on a threshold there seeing how close they can get to attacking Americans without our response.”

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Lankford expressed support for the continued provision of U.S. aid to Israel to defend itself and carry on its military operations, and criticized colleagues who he said had not argued that additional congressional authorization was needed in order to provide U.S. support for Ukraine but are now taking a different approach to Israel.

“There seems to be a double standard among some of my colleagues that they strongly defend the rights of Ukraine to defend themselves, but hesitate on Israel,” Lankford said.